O’ Connell Street, Dublin
- This topic has 3,789 replies, 212 voices, and was last updated 11 years, 7 months ago by
urbanisto.
- AuthorPosts
- April 7, 2005 at 8:26 pm #728987
Paul Clerkin
Keymastermaybe we should – just issue a complaint everytime someone spots a new one…
April 7, 2005 at 9:26 pm #728988Anonymous
Inactive@Paul Clerkin wrote:
maybe we should – just issue a complaint everytime someone spots a new one…
Could it be time to put up a template complaints in relation to temporary advertisements on protected structures and in ACAs?
April 7, 2005 at 9:35 pm #728989Anonymous
InactiveThomond.
I think the fact that these things were the exact things that the IAP of 1998 aimed to change in relation to the street should also be pointed out within any complaint.April 7, 2005 at 9:54 pm #728990Paul Clerkin
Keymaster@Thomond Park wrote:
Could it be time to put up a template complaints in relation to temporary advertisements on protected structures and in ACAs?
if someone wants to knock up rtf files of stock letters, I’ll create a folder for downloads and a webpage to match
April 8, 2005 at 12:48 am #728991GrahamH
ParticipantThat’s an excellent idea – I’m sure the CC will be delighted with the news ๐
I don’t blame the CC for this ‘incident’ though – it’s tricky enough to police the area all of the time. Although yes, there seems to be a culture of complacency developing amongst some retailers that needs to be reigned in fast by the CC.
Anyway I’ve contacted them about the issue. I hope action is taken in whatever form, and that it will set a precendent for all owners/occupiers on the street. Simply reiterating to owners alone, the special status of the area would help a lot.
Here’s the sign on Kylemore – small, but cheap and nasty:

Saw the new ‘oriental plane trees’ (no less) on the Lower section recently – as Stephen C said they look very well and immediately soften and enliven the area.
And just on the flags – M&S on Grafton St lowered them last night/this morning ๐
April 8, 2005 at 12:43 pm #728992Anonymous
InactiveGood to hear you have put something in Graham, I’ll do a template up citing the appropriate regulations over the weekend and e-mail it to Paul, I am starting to agree with you on scale regarding plastic signage seeing the colours of the Langauge School sign, Langauge Schools have been some of the worst offenders in regard to illegal signage and unfortunately a lot of it is not of the temporary variety.
Thanks for posting the flags on O’Connell Bridge I’m glad to see that this weeks events have been marked by the City Council, it is a fitting tribute.
April 8, 2005 at 1:17 pm #728993urbanisto
ParticipantI have added my voice to this and sent a mail to Anne Graham. Is a formal message really required…why not just email and make a comment….a bit of public pressure. To be honest the Project Team at DCC are probably totally unaware of the signage.
All the missing trees between the Plaze and Abbey St have been replaced. Looks great.
Erection of hoardings for the statutes starts on Monday. I would imagine that Phase II paving will start then as well.
April 8, 2005 at 1:17 pm #728994Niall
ParticipantJeez, ban the lot! Tacarama
April 9, 2005 at 12:25 am #728995Anonymous
InactiveI hope that the paving starts soon, whilst there is disturbance it also gives you a sense that the waiting will soon be over.
April 11, 2005 at 10:20 am #728996urbanisto
ParticipantPlease note anyone wishing to badger Anne Graham regarding the Bruger King banner that she no longer works with the OConnell St project team. Mails should be forwarded to the Area Manager Paul Crowe
April 11, 2005 at 12:55 pm #728997Anonymous
Inactive@Graham Hickey wrote:
However they do intend to redecorate the existing timber shopfront, and interestingly they wish (are being forced :)) to restore the steel windows of the upper floors, but they note that some are ‘beyond repair’ and are to be replaced with replicas.
They own 2 properties here, so presumably the other half’s wooden sashes are to be restored too.I wonder did they originally intend to use timber or uPVC replacements?
April 11, 2005 at 2:00 pm #728998GrahamH
ParticipantWhat I’d say nearly for sure anyway is that the inquiring hand of the CC with ACA in the back pocket has had a role in this application.
It reads as uncharacteristically detailed, with an emphasis on exactly what is to be done with the windows – highlighting their present condition, both those that need repair and those that don’t, and that replicas will be necessary in some cases. I very much so doubt that they proposed this all by themselves.It has a whiff of in-depth City Council consulatation, which if the case, must be welcomed.
April 11, 2005 at 2:18 pm #728999Anonymous
InactiveAn all too rare commodity on O’Connell Street it would appear.
Did anyone see the storey in yesterdays Sunday Business Post that British Land submitted an expression of interest in the Carlton Site as did a Dutch consortium, it appears that Castlethorn have 7 years to develop the site or sell it on to someone who has the funds and experise to do so. I can see the failure to tie up the right to re sell issue as being problematic given the hit that The Carlton Group will take from the CPO.
April 12, 2005 at 12:03 am #729000Spitzer
ParticipantThose are good photos of the GPO. How do you put photos on to the page like that?
April 12, 2005 at 12:26 am #729001GrahamH
ParticipantYou have to host them elsewhere – like Photobucket.com. Suppose it’s not the ideal soloution, as for reference purposes into the future, the account may close down for whatever reason….
So to completely ignore that :), here’s a rather bizarre version of the Burger King sign taken on film – what I originally meant to post. Eloquence features this time – she’s got a very strange white hue to her clothes that doen’t come out that well on-screen. Spooky all the same.
April 12, 2005 at 12:30 am #729002Spitzer
ParticipantThats just a howl
April 12, 2005 at 9:53 am #729003Lotts
ParticipantI contacted the City Council and was informed that this matter has already been referred to the Planning Department for investigation.
April 12, 2005 at 10:21 am #729004GrahamH
ParticipantGood to hear ๐
The monument restoration project began early this morning – the scaffolding is going up very rapidly around O’Connell Monument at the moment. The hoardings are also being made up on site.
Wish I’d been able to take a picture – all the winged Victories look most bizarre being caged in scaffolding: something of an uneasy look to them, not least with workmen scrambling about next to them ๐One thing you don’t realise is just how tall this temporary structure is going to be – presumably it’s going to go right up to O’ Connell’s head which is four storeys above the street ๐ฎ
April 12, 2005 at 1:24 pm #729005Anonymous
Inactive@Graham Hickey wrote:
Good to hear ๐
One thing you don’t realise is just how tall this temporary structure is going to be – presumably it’s going to go right up to O’ Connell’s head which is four storeys above the street ๐ฎ
I suppose it has to be as the insurance requirements of chemical use in a City Centre Street would be quite stringent I’d say, the contentious point is will they be down by the 30th of June.
The photo of Burger King is the most revealing yet, ‘freshly baked’ more like half baked I’d say
April 13, 2005 at 3:22 am #729006Spitzer
Participant@Graham Hickey wrote:
Good to hear ๐
The monument restoration project began early this morning – the scaffolding is going up very rapidly around O’Connell Monument at the moment. The hoardings are also being made up on site.
Wish I’d been able to take a picture – all the winged Victories look most bizarre being caged in scaffolding: something of an uneasy look to them, not least with workmen scrambling about next to them ๐One thing you don’t realise is just how tall this temporary structure is going to be – presumably it’s going to go right up to O’ Connell’s head which is four storeys above the street ๐ฎ
Down with that sort of thing, Victories needs freedom
- AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

